4- The Inherent continuity of the Face and the Cydonia site

One of the early contributors to our current understanding of the Cydonia enigma is an architect by the name of Robert Fiertek

Robert wrote:

"Design theories exist to mirror the will of the society, reflecting that society's intent. Compare our Modern architecture's emphasis on clean planes to simplify with the medieval cathedral builders' efforts at vaulting the spaces to impress on visitors a visceral sense of the presence of the Divine.

"The basic idea of the Cydonia complex seems to be based in the celebration of musical and mathematical patterns.

"Let us assume, as the evidence seems so strongly to suggest, that the Cydonian City is indeed a product of intelligent design. A detailed examination reveals the designers to have been quite facile at expressing complexity without delving into randomness. They repeatedly chose to let design factors intertwine to engage and influence the design (as opposed to having had all the objects the same shape or size or orientation).

"This web of geometric interrelationships among structures betrays deliberate design in many basic ways. By further interpreting this evidence it may eventually be possible to see into the mindset of the creators of these structures, through the degree and quality of complexity of design, and to gain some insight into their sensibilities.

 

"The complexity in the designs and the ability of the designers to transcend simplistic clichés is far greater than that currently being generated by design theory on Earth. "

What Fiertek is saying is that the Builders of Cydonia -- judging strictly from their apparent architectural designs -- were part of a highly sophisticated culture. That their geometric layout of the other structures in this Complex (separate from the Face itself) was both "original" and far from "obvious" (no Los Angeles "gridded streets" apparent in the NASA photographs). That they (the Builders) carefully avoided an "amateur," simplistic symmetry in their layout of the larger Complex, preferring instead a definite asymmetry in the placement of the structures -- one that subtly reiterated key mathematical relationships.

Now, the Face is obviously the central element embedded (as Hoagland and Torun demonstrated many years ago) in this proposed Cydonia Design. Why then, would we imagine that it would not be consistent with the overall pattern of the rest of this extraordinarily sophisticated Complex? Why would we conclude, based on such architectural sophistication, that the Face itself would suddenly depart into a very linear, symmetrical perspective -- when every other feature at Cydonia is asymmetric?

In fact, would it not be far more reasonable to assume that the underlying mental template used to design the City of Cydonia would indeed be inherent in the Face itself? Those who claim that the Face cannot now be artificial - because, unlike "real faces," it is obviously asymmetric -- are simply using the wrong rulers of artistic "measurement." Their case against the Face's artificiality simply falls apart, once you realize that it would be architecturally and culturally inconsistent for the Face to be the only thing symmetric at Cydonia ... surrounded by a supporting urban Complex obviously designed to reinforce an asymmetric "Message!"
 

Degree of Adherence of Various Structures
to Formative Ideas as Described by Clark & Pause
categories based on the book Precedents in Architecture
by Roger H. Clark and Michael Pause

On this chart are compared seven artificial and natural structures based on formative categories as described in detail in the book Precedents in Architecture. Structures are rated on a scale of 0-2 depending on how well the structures fulfill the description of that category. The tabulated total potentially describes the extent of artificiality of a designed structure. It is of course possible for a totally man-made structure to get a zero if it is designed to look natural. These are the structures rated:

• Structure A: The Acropolis, Athens - monumental complex of classical Greek structures

• Structure B: The Gizeh Complex (and Sphinx), Egypt - another example of a monumental complex but, like Cydonia, on a desert plain

• Structure C: Anasazi Indian Ruins, Arizona - chosen as an example of a pre-Western building complex

• Structure D: Central Park, New York City - A park complex of artificial structures set in a wholly artificial, natural looking environment. It is representative of the 19^th century English garden movement whose aim it was to improve on nature

• Structure E: Devil's Tower, Wyoming - chosen since this structure, though natural, evokes feelings of artificiality nonetheless. Also the lead character in the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"

• Structure F: Crater Chain, Moon - chosen as an example of a natural structure

• Structure G: Cydonia Complex, Mars

	0 = does not fulfill category 1 = partially fulfills category 2 =  mostly fulfills category
		A	B	C	D	E	F	G
1.	Plan to Section
	a. Equal	2	0	1-2	0	0	0	0
	b. One to One-Half	0	1-2	0	0	0	0	2
	c. Analogous	1	1-2	1-2	0-1	1	0	1-2
	d. Proportional	1	0	2	0	0	0	1
	e. Inverse	0	0	0	1-2	0	2	0
2.	Unit to Whole
	a. Unit Equals Whole	0	2	0	0	2	1	1
	b. Units Contained in Whole	1	0	2	2	0	0	0
	c. Whole Greater than Sum of Units	2	1-2	1-2	2	0	0	2
	d. Units Aggregate to Form Whole
	1. Adjoin	0-1	0	2	1-2	0-1	0	0
	2. Overlap	0	0	1-2	1-2	0-1	0	0
	3. Separate	2	2	1	1	0	2	2
3.	Repetitive to Unique
	a. Unique Surrounded by Repetitive	1	0	1	1	0	0-1	1
	b. Unique by Transformation of Repetitive	1	0	1	1	0	0-1	1
	c. Unique in Repetitive Field	0	0	0-1	0	0	0	0
	d. Unique Added to Repet.	1-2	2	1-2	2	0	0	1
	e. Unique Defined by Repet.	1-2	0	0	0	1	0	1-2
4.	Additive & Subtractive
	a. Subtractive	0	0	0-1	0	0	0	0
	b. Additive	2	2	1	0-1	0-1	2	2
5.	Symmetry & Balance
	a. Symmetry	1	1	0	0-1	2	2	1-2
	b. Balance by Configuration	2	2	2	2	1	2	2
	c. Balance by Geometry	0-1	1	0	0	0	0	0
	d. Balance by Positive & Negative	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
6.	Geometry
	a. Basic Geometry	0-1	1-2	0-1	01	1	1-2	1-2
	b. Circle and Square	0	0	0	01	0	0	0
	c. Rectang. Overlap by Circle	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	d. Two Squares	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	e. Nine Square	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	f. Four Square	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	g. 1.4 & 1.6 Rectangles	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
	h. Geometric Derivatives	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
	i. Rotated, Shifted & Overlap	2	1	1	1	0	0	2
	j. Pinwheel, Radial & Spiral	0	0-1	0	0	1	0	2
	k. Grid	1	0-1	1	1	0	0	1
7.	Configuration Patterns
	a. Linear: Use	0-1	0-1	0-1	1	0	0	0
	b. Linear: Circulation	1	1-2	1	2	0	0	1
	c. Central: Use	1	0	1	1	0	0	1
	d. Central: Circulation	1	0	0-1	1	0	0	1
	e. Double Center	1-2	1	0-1	0-1	0	0	1-2
	f. Cluster	2	2	2	2	0	0	2
	g. Nested	1-2	0	0-1	2	0	0	1
	h. Concentric	0-1	0	0	1	0	0	1
	i. Bi-Nuclear	9	1	0	0	0	0	0
8.	Progressions
	a. Hierarchy	2	1-2	0-1	1	0	0	2
	b. Transition	1-2	2	2	2	0	2	2
	c. Transformation	1	0-1	1	1 -2	0	0	1-2
	d. Mediation	2	1	2	1	1	01	2
9.	Reduction
	a. Large Plus Small Reduct.	2	2	0	1-2	0	0	2
	b. Part of Whole Reduction	1	0	0	2	0	0	1-2
	Low score	38	31	28	33	10	14	44
	High score	49	40	41	44	13	17	515

Again, I must come back to "them" -- to appropriately analyze a Work of Art one must apply the standards of that Art. In the case of the Face on Mars, we not only have the Face itself to deal with, we have compelling evidence of surrounding architectural Design.

Cydonia is NOT a case of an isolated "geological anomaly" that happens to resemble something called "a Face". It is a highly sophisticated Complex, consisting of a series of related structures - which maintain a unifying geometric correlation totally consistent with the highest Architecture on this Planet. And the Face is it's crowning, communicative Centerpiece.

Thus, we have before us "an enigma in a context" - not only capable of stirring Mankind's deepest memories of "something else" ... - but of ultimately shattering the shackles that for too long have imprisoned Humanity's once true vision of itself. The long Night is almost over ...

Go Back